RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

90 Degree Muffler Adapter
Seller: RC Specialties
Details: $17.95 | 7/13/2008 | Classified Ad
We will rotate YOUR AD in this spot if you select "Forum Featured" when placing or editing your ad!

All Forums >> Glow Engines, Gas Engines, Fuel & Mfg Support Forums >> Glow Engines >> RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting

Page: << < prev 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 31 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 6/19/2007 11:51:12 PM

tmw09

Posts: 73
Joined: 9/26/2003
From: Port Saint Lucie, FL, USA
Status: offline

Thank you all for the help on the burr in the carb barrel grove. I sand off the lip as mentioned in the earlier threads. I fly at Wintonbury Flying Club in Bloomfield, CT by the way. We are have a few fly ins this summer, particularly New England's largest electric meet on the last saturday in July 2007. It is AMA sponsored and should be a great event. Come on out if you have the time and invite your friends. Go to www.wfc.com for more information.

Tim Walker

_____________________________

name a plane you love.

(in reply to tsyssa)

Post #: 601

RE: My 2300 only likes one prop - 6/20/2007 4:58:03 AM

MikeRuth

Posts: 289
Joined: 3/6/2006
From: Tarzana, CA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sturtz

The one I have has been taken apart and checked out . All looked fine to the naked eye. When I tried the Perry carb and pump they checked out as well. And as for the tank , it was taken apart and rebuilt 3 or 4 times. I did learn alot about this engine and could tune , break-in and generally have an easy time of things if I were to get another one that worked right. I haven't had any offers for a new one from Tower yet so I guess they don't read these threads. I order 90% of my parts from them so maybe they will give me a break if I sent it back. Although I've had to do the JB Weld trick on two stock mufflers ,, the motor is in good shape.
Again I want to thank Bob Pastorello for helping me with this engine. Considering he is one of the top G2300 experts in the world, my case should be cut and dried that mine was a lemon. I'm going to call Tower Monday morning and talk with them. Not just being a Super Saver member but a loyal customer of Tower I will say they have always done me right.

Why keep trying the G2300 ? A friend bought a new one recently, mounted it to a plane , broke it in on that plane and hasn't had a deadstick one. Regular tubing, stock everything except muffler (Slimline Pitts..no blocked pipes). Runs great.

The guys with the good ones find all this trouble we are having hard to believe. Don't you ?

What is the "JB WELD TRICK"?

I'm assuming it is to put JB Weld around the muffler on the seam that leaks.

MIke R

< Message edited by MikeRuth -- 6/20/2007 5:00:08 AM >

(in reply to Sturtz)

Post #: 602

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 7/12/2007 4:45:09 PM

boex

Posts: 54
Joined: 9/3/2005
From: Miramar, ARGENTINA
Status: offline

Well, I am back in the air with my extra 330 and my stock 2300 in it, after fixing the damaged landing gear and fuse because of a deadstick. I am now flying very conservatively, high, close to the runway, not varying the throttle much just in case of another flameout. This is not the way to fly an extra but the 2300 apparently doesn't like any other type of flying, let alone 3d.

My question is, is this engine will ever get to the point where it becomes trustworthy to attempt mild 3d flying or is it going to behave poorly and unreliably the rest of its life?

(in reply to MikeRuth)

Post #: 603

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 7/12/2007 7:44:29 PM

Ed Cregger

Posts: 7599
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Ringgold, GA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: boex

Well, I am back in the air with my extra 330 and my stock 2300 in it, after fixing the damaged landing gear and fuse because of a deadstick. I am now flying very conservatively, high, close to the runway, not varying the throttle much just in case of another flameout. This is not the way to fly an extra but the 2300 apparently doesn't like any other type of flying, let alone 3d.

My question is, is this engine will ever get to the point where it becomes trustworthy to attempt mild 3d flying or is it going to behave poorly and unreliably the rest of its life?

-----------------

The majority of times when people complain about deadsticks (which are the pilot's fault, not that of the engine) they have a problem with their fuel tank set up and plumbing, IF the engine has been broken-in properly. Some engines should not be flown until they are well broken-in on a test bench. Especially if the engine is intended for 3D flying. 3D requires that an engine be really seated well and finely adjusted.

Those complaining about the G2300, or most any other engine, have made some bad decisions along the way, but, once again, assuming that the engine has been broken-in properly. glow engines generally are not plug'n'play. If you want one of those, you shouldn't be looking at anything other than YS or OS.

Were I forced to fly a two-stroke glow engine in my 3D plane (not likely), the first thing that I would do is to fit the engine with either a Cline or Iron Bay regulator system. The fuel tank would have to be something high end, not the junk that comes with most models. I would also be tempted to look for a carburetor with a slightly smaller air flow capability than the stock carb that came with the G2300. You're not going to be using full throttle often anyway, if you have the least bit of finesse, so you might as well get a carb that will sufficiently atomize the fuel during partial throttle operation. Most glow two-strokes suffer in this area. This would be a smaller OS or Magnum/Sanye/ASP/SC carb. Or, if you want a really great carb, see if one from Jett Engineering will fit your engine after explaining to the helpful folks what it is that you are trying to do.

You may as well add a head gasket or two too, because most 3D folks are also nitro freaks, at least here in the US.

Were I really paranoid about deadsticking during a hover, an onboard glow driver might also be in the works. Most times they aren't needed, if things are set up correctly. Most times. It is not beyond reason to swap out the glow driver for a light weight spark ignition system. Then you know you'll have spark when you need it.

I have yet to understand why anyone thinks that hovering a model a few feet off the ground is any big deal. What are you guys thinking? Try flying a proscribed pattern some day and find out what disciplined flying is about. It is much more difficult than flopping around in close.

Ed Cregger

_____________________________

Artisan

"Flying models since the Fifties - I'll get the hang of this yet!!!"

(in reply to boex)

Post #: 604

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 7/12/2007 10:28:12 PM

Cyclic Hardover

Posts: 7190
Joined: 5/7/2002
From: New Mexico, USA
Status: offline

You should not just build the plane and do it, need to build up trust in the plane. Flying conservative can do this. Do your stunts up higher.

_____________________________

Retired Army Aviator - Excuse Me! You sold me a hair with a cake around it!

(in reply to Ed Cregger)

Post #: 605

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 7/13/2007 9:40:51 PM

coupar

Posts: 55
Joined: 3/17/2003
From: Leesburg, VA, USA
Status: offline

Boex:

Dispite all the great advice in this thread, my 2300 would dead stick suddenly at a throttle change. It would happen anywhere in the flight.

I tuned the Dickens out of the engine, tried several plugs (F included), variations of fuel (5,10,15) and run gallons of it, variations of props (16,15,18....), variations of fuel tubing, Perry Carb, Perry pump, completly new fuel system and I am using the stock muffler. The engine would run just great on the ground and you could shake it all over the place it would be fine. Then up in the air, every flight, dead stick out of no where! After spending $100 dollars on these various attempts to correct the (cheap?) engine, I bought a 4500mah C cell and a switch (total cost less than $10, weight a few ounces) and hooked it up as an on board glow. The engine has run like a champ ever since. Not one dead stick in 40 flights and I can idle to the point I can almost count the revs.

Even if this isnt a great solution for you, I would try on board glow first because it's gotta be the cheapest option and it will hide a lot of tuning issues from giving you dead sticks. A 4500mah cell gives you about 2 hours of flying. I wouldnt even mess with the fancier on board glow controllers. In my experience you just dont know what throttle setting the engine could die at!

Cheers for now!

(in reply to tmw09)

Post #: 606

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 7/14/2007 2:42:11 AM

boex

Posts: 54
Joined: 9/3/2005
From: Miramar, ARGENTINA
Status: offline

I appreciate everyone of you for giving great advice and I find RCU an incredible source of info and news about our great hobby.

I am very encouraged Coupar by your results. I will definitely try your suggestion and go with the simple on board glow solution.

One question though, should I go with a 1.2v Ni cad or 1.5v alkaline. Also, should I go with a hot or cold plug. Since I am concerned about all this extra heat from the battery on top of the heat from the combustion.

(in reply to coupar)

Post #: 607

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 7/14/2007 7:07:13 AM

Ed Cregger

Posts: 7599
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Ringgold, GA, USA
Status: offline

Let's not forget the possibility of fuel foaming, which will do just what Cougar described, i.e., run fine on the ground, but run sour, or quit, in the air.

The fuel tank, including the neck and metal tubing feed lines from the tank, must be completely isolated from any hard part of the model. Any hard part of the model, including the firewall.

Engines do not cop an attitude. They are inert lumps of metal. They do not "know" anything. For instance, where they are. If the conditions remain favorable, they will continue to run. If they do not, one must determine which condition changed in an unfavorable manner and why.

I would really ensure that the engine's fuel supply is not foaming the fuel first. Make sure there are no air leaks and that the clunk in the fuel tank is not so close to the back of the fuel tank that it can be suctioned to the rear wall of the tank, cutting off the flow of fuel. Ditto the vent line tubing inside of the fuel tank. It too can be pulled against the fuel tank wall and can cut off the outside air that is needed to permit the fuel to flow to the engine. Sometimes, when things "look okay", but the problem persists, it is necessary to just try something. Especially when it comes to internal fuel tank feed line length. Cut a 1/4" off of that feedline, just to be sure. Sometimes we cannot imagine how a fuel line can stretch far enough to block off the fuel flow, but it does.

Good luck solving your problem. Let us know what the solution was, when you find it.

Ed Cregger

edited by moderator

< Message edited by blw -- 7/14/2007 3:22:51 PM >

_____________________________

Artisan

"Flying models since the Fifties - I'll get the hang of this yet!!!"

(in reply to boex)

Post #: 608

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 7/14/2007 2:27:32 PM

coupar

Posts: 55
Joined: 3/17/2003
From: Leesburg, VA, USA
Status: offline

Boex: I would use a 1.2. As long as you use good wire and connections you should'nt have a problem. I kept the F plug but once you have on board glow the engine should be less sensitive to the plug type anyway. The plug only draws around 2 amps (so about 2+ watts of heat) so relative to the engine heat, this is nothing. The only pain is that you have to charge the battery. If it works for you, I believe there are products out there to let you use your 4.8 or 6v radio battery but then you risk using the radio's power too much. There is general comments from this thread that the G2300 gets better and more reliable with age (slow burn in). Once you get rid of the dead sticks and fly the thing, you may find after a while that the on board is'nt needed.

Ed:

You are way over my head buddy. Several very experienced guys from the club and I spent a lot of time with this engine and had all kinds of ideas resulting in some great performance improvements (many from this thread) with little or no impact on the sudden dead sticks. Another guy in the club had the same problem, same engine. After my experience, he adopted the on board glow early and it saved him a lot of money (and plane). So...after all that I guess we are just dummys because it was the fuel foaming after all! Mann we certainly did'nt think of that one. Thanks a bunch. Question though, would'nt the new carb and Perry pump have made some kind of difference to a fuel foaming problem? Why would adding an on board glow to the ignition component have helped a fuel problem?

Ed, after this experience, for $10, I plan on using on board glow any time I think it will help. I am building a twin right now. I've already decided it will have on board glow. I'm really sorry buddy but now I have the crutch I cant let go. I am really ashamed of myself......

< Message edited by blw -- 7/14/2007 3:25:59 PM >

(in reply to Ed Cregger)

Post #: 609

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 7/14/2007 2:59:52 PM

doublesixes

Posts: 91
Joined: 9/6/2005
From: santa ana, CA, USA
Status: offline

I am also one of those enthusiasts that has experienced the ST malaise.
In its defense I can say that the engine always starts and produces lots of power but on the other hand, its inflight reliability is disappointing. One never knows if the engine will quit in any of the following situations:
a. On final, at idle.
b. When throttling up at any attitude.
c. In nose up attitudes.

It´s encouraging to hear from fellow pilots that this problem was solved by the use of an onboard plug and I will be implementing that cure ASAP. I will report my results here.

I have to respectfully disagree with Ed here where he claims that deadsticks are always the pilot´s fault. To prove my point I can say that my other OS powered engines never showed such unreliable operation given the fact that my building techniques remain consistent regardless of engine brands.

If this onboard plug cure really works, one would have to assume that what´s most adversly critical about ST engines, especially the larger ones, are the designs of the cylinder head where the combustion takes place, the transfer case and/or the carb. It seems the glow gets overwhelmed by a disproportionate amount of fuel it receives under such mentioned circumstances.

< Message edited by doublesixes -- 7/14/2007 3:18:57 PM >

(in reply to Ed Cregger)

Post #: 610

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 7/14/2007 5:41:42 PM

MikeRuth

Posts: 289
Joined: 3/6/2006
From: Tarzana, CA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Question though, would'nt the new carb and Perry pump have made some kind of difference to a fuel foaming problem? Why would adding an on board glow to the ignition component have helped a fuel problem?

The on board kept it lit because the motor continued to receive some fuel. With out the onboard the lack of just a little bit of fuel would cause the flame out.
the perry pump and carb would make no difference in that situation as the pump is still passing fuel with air in it.

while testing a new G2300 I noticed exactly the same problem only from a rich condition, it would flame out if to rich, but in that case a OS F (hotter than stock) plug solved the problem, as well as using on board with the stock plug.

I like my G2300 but it does have it's quirks. I tend to agree with the cyclinder head design could use some improvement. I would bet a twin plug head would do wonders for both the low and top end with or without the stock carb.

One other thing, as mentioned in other posts the carb nipple and tank center line need to be extemely close to one another. Even with a perry pump and carb, I have a tank high condition that makes setting up the idle very sensitive. Seems as though this alignment must be followed no matter what. Gravity is the culprit here.

Mike R

(in reply to coupar)

Post #: 611

RE: ST2300 Testing and Experimenting - 7/14/2007 10:36:16 PM

XJet

Posts: 3303
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Tokoroa, NEW ZEALAND
Status: offline

It's pretty obvious that there are two problems:

1. The ST line of engines is *very* sensitive to changes in fuel mixture. I've seen this on just about every "overbored" engine I've ever used. When the transfer ports become too shallow (large bore in a small casting) then quite a bit of choking can occur and there may also be some aggregation of the fuel droplets into larger ones due to the fact they're forced so close together as they pass through the transfer ports without the aid of combustion chamber heat (but that bit's speculation on my part.)

2. The ST carbs are not very good at fuel regulation at different throttle settings or with different airflows at a fixed setting.

Either of these problems on their own isn't too bad.

I've seen bad carbs on good engines and they still perform adequately (some folks find that the ST carbs work just fine on their OS engines for example)

I've also seen good carbs fix many of the woes that occur on a stock ST engine. This can also be verified by fitting an OS, Magnum or other "good" carby to an ST. This often produces a far more reliable engine with vastly improved throttling.

But, put the less than optimum ST carb on the hyper-sensitive ST engine and you have a recipe for disaster.

Careful tuning, painstaking selection of glowplug, meticulous testing of various props and tuning the formula for the fuel being used can all help mitigate some of the symptoms of this situation, but the root cause remains.

The fact that the engine will run so much better with permanent plug heat shows not that the head design is wrong but that the carb can't meter fuel well enough for the transfer port design of the ST engines.

ST either has to change their porting or use a better carb.

In the meantime, a *small* percentage of ST users will luck out and get a combination of prop, plug, fuel, tuning that provides reliability and throttling that meets their needs -- but a whole lot more folks will have to cope with deadsticks, lousy mid-range and other woes that OS, Thunder Tiger, Magnum, and a raft of other engine manufacturers seem able to avoid with ease.

However, so long as they're the cheapest option on the block they'll continue to sell.

And, so long as there are people (like myself) who are prepared to "fix" them so that they run properly, and people who buy because they have a religous brand-dedication, some people will find them okay.

I bet there are a lot of broken models as a result of ST's poor matching of carb to engine and I bet there are also a lot of STs that sit in boxes under modellers benches after their owners give up on them.

And, as I've said before, I just can't understand why ST doesn't bite the bullet and switch to a more conventional twi-needle carb such as those used by OS, Magnum, GMS, Thunder Tiger etc. For the sake of a few bucks in re-engineering they'd have a whole new (far better) engine and the vast majority of those threads that **** about STs would disappear overnight.

As a consumer, I get annoyed when a manufacturer blames *me* for a design deficiency in their product rather than simply going out and fixing the problem they've clearly got.

_____________________________

When I'm not here,